That's not a rationale. That's the point. You can't say "he assaulted his wife, therefore 27 game suspension" any more or less than you could say "he assaulted his wife, therefore tomorrow at dawn he will be burned at the stake".

Unless there's some basis - the rationale - for why it's the former and not the latter, or why it's 27 games and not 15 or 50 - then the punishment is arbitrary.

Quote:

Comparing this to past suspensions isn't relevant. They aren't apples to apples. The only comparison is Voynov I suppose.
So what are you looking for?

Thought I was pretty clear - I'm looking for whatever they used to land on this number. Only they can tell me what that is.

Quote:

And to be clear people aren't just asking why this was the suspension they have LITERALLY said that it seems harsh.

Yes - the implication being that it was too much and should have been less. You may respond, well, why should it have been less? They'll respond, well, why should it have been this much? The NHL dished out the punishment, presumably based on a process and rationale that it is able to explain, and it should be the one to answer.

__________________If you were given the option to pay 45 cents to predict the outcome of a coin flip, and if correct in your prediction you win a dollar, you may lose 45 cents on the first try. You may even lose 90 cents after the second try. But if you keep betting, you'll end up ahead in the long term. This is the value of analytics. They do not describe destiny, only the likeliest result.

That's not a rationale. That's the point. You can't say "he assaulted his wife, therefore 27 game suspension" any more or less than you could say "he assaulted his wife, therefore tomorrow at dawn he will be burned at the stake".

Unless there's some basis - the rationale - for why it's the former and not the latter, or why it's 27 games and not 15 or 50 - then the punishment is arbitrary.

Thought I was pretty clear - I'm looking for whatever they used to land on this number. Only they can tell me what that is.

Yes - the implication being that it was too much and should have been less. You may respond, well, why should it have been less? They'll respond, well, why should it have been this much? The NHL dished out the punishment, presumably based on a process and rationale that it is able to explain, and it should be the one to answer.

So give me an example of the type of response you want to hear from the NHL.

So give me an example of the type of response you want to here from the NHL.

I literally just said it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Thought I was pretty clear - I'm looking for whatever they used to land on this number. Only they can tell me what that is.

I'd like to know the process that was used and how it led to them coming up with this. I'm not outraged by the suspension, far from it, but I am curious as to how it was arrived at.

__________________If you were given the option to pay 45 cents to predict the outcome of a coin flip, and if correct in your prediction you win a dollar, you may lose 45 cents on the first try. You may even lose 90 cents after the second try. But if you keep betting, you'll end up ahead in the long term. This is the value of analytics. They do not describe destiny, only the likeliest result.

__________________If you were given the option to pay 45 cents to predict the outcome of a coin flip, and if correct in your prediction you win a dollar, you may lose 45 cents on the first try. You may even lose 90 cents after the second try. But if you keep betting, you'll end up ahead in the long term. This is the value of analytics. They do not describe destiny, only the likeliest result.

An example of what type of explanation would make you feel better.
They needed to make a decision on how many games without many comparison points. So are you looking for some mathematical formula or what?

I've said it like three times now. I don't know what information or process they used to make the decision, mathematical formula or otherwise. Whatever they did use, that is what I would like them to explain. I really don't know how I can be clearer.

__________________If you were given the option to pay 45 cents to predict the outcome of a coin flip, and if correct in your prediction you win a dollar, you may lose 45 cents on the first try. You may even lose 90 cents after the second try. But if you keep betting, you'll end up ahead in the long term. This is the value of analytics. They do not describe destiny, only the likeliest result.

I've said it like three times now. I don't know what information or process they used to make the decision, mathematical formula or otherwise. Whatever they did use, that is what I would like them to explain. I really don't know how I can be clearer.

The release says the ruling was tailored to the specific facts of this case.
The way you can be more clear is by providing an example of what you think would be reasonable to outline.

The release says the ruling was tailored to the specific facts of this case.
The way you can be more clear is by providing an example of what you think would be reasonable to outline.

# of bruises on her body = # of games?

Let me try once again to make this clear: I don't know. Did they decide on 27 games based on the number of bruises on her body? Probably not, but if they did, tell us that. Did they decide based on some internal policy that links the number of games to the sentence he received upon pleading no contest? Probably not, but if they did, tell us that.

I don't know what they did. No one does. They do. They have that information. They can tell us. Then we have the information. I am not going to sit here and guess what the reasoning was. Whatever it was, explain it. What is so hard to understand about this?

__________________If you were given the option to pay 45 cents to predict the outcome of a coin flip, and if correct in your prediction you win a dollar, you may lose 45 cents on the first try. You may even lose 90 cents after the second try. But if you keep betting, you'll end up ahead in the long term. This is the value of analytics. They do not describe destiny, only the likeliest result.

The Following User Says Thank You to CorsiHockeyLeague For This Useful Post:

Let me try once again to make this clear: I don't know. Did they decide on 27 games based on the number of bruises on her body? Probably not, but if they did, tell us that. Did they decide based on some internal policy that links the number of games to the sentence he received upon pleading no contest? Probably not, but if they did, tell us that.

I don't know what they did. No one does. They do. They have that information. They can tell us. Then we have the information. I am not going to sit here and guess what the reasoning was. Whatever it was, explain it. What is so hard to understand about this?

What makes you believe you have a right to that information? The league doesn't have to make their process in these sensitive situations transparent to you.

__________________

Quote:

Originally Posted by ResAlien

If we can't fall in love with replaceable bottom 6 players then the terrorists have won.

The Following User Says Thank You to Cali Panthers Fan For This Useful Post:

That's fine. I think they should release it, because without that information the suspension length appears arbitrary. If it doesn't matter to them whether the public (or players) understand why or how they arrived at 27 games, then fine, that's up to them. But it seems to me that they'd want to be transparent about that if the goal, as it should be, is to discourage this sort of behaviour in the future.

I suspect it'll come out through the appeal process with the NHLPA anyway.

__________________If you were given the option to pay 45 cents to predict the outcome of a coin flip, and if correct in your prediction you win a dollar, you may lose 45 cents on the first try. You may even lose 90 cents after the second try. But if you keep betting, you'll end up ahead in the long term. This is the value of analytics. They do not describe destiny, only the likeliest result.

I understand why the NHL would suspend him - his off-ice behaviour has adversely impacted the persona of the league and what it wants to represent. The suspension acts to punish players who harm the reputation of the league as an added deterrent (to the question of "why shouldn't I beat my wife?").

That's fine - I get it the rationale. Makes sense. Except for the part that no player who is about to beat his wife in the heat of the moment is going to be deterred by this policy because if they were thinking rationally, they wouldn't beat their wife in the first place. So whether its 1 game or 10 games or 1000 games, no player who is about to beat their wife is going to think in the moment about the possible suspension from their employer because they're simply not thinking.

But ignoring this obvious logic flaw, its still entirely subjective with regards to what a reasonable deterrent should be. So the NHLPA needs to fight this to make sure the subjective answer is properly answered and subjectively reasonable (to the NHLPA).

And then there's one lingering issue - this suspension actually punishes the victim. Say Watsons wife wants a divorce now...she's also losing income she'd be entitled to in a divorce court. So in a way she's getting punished for having gotten beaten. Also doesn't make a ton of sense either.

What makes you believe you have a right to that information? The league doesn't have to make their process in these sensitive situations transparent to you.

If they are doing this on the grounds of morality in an attempt to take a stand against this sort of behaviour, maybe it's important that they do. They would be attempting to carry out a similar aim to the state when imposing criminal law, insofar as they are imposing a punishment for immoral behaviour. Those proceedings are generally, with some caveats, a part of the public record, and had this case proceeded to trial it likely would have been open to the public. I get that there is definitely a difference because you don't have the element of the exercise of state power, but if the point is to bring attention to it as the serious issue that it is, the league could boost its credibility in the decision making process by being more transparent. Transparency is not just a question of finding determining if a penalty excessive, but very well could be a question of whether the league was too lenient. Based on the NHLs general track record on suspensions that is what I would be concerned about.

They're not lawyers. It's a union. They are not required to go to bat for a woman beater.

If there is a legal argument that can be made to challenge the decision the union is legally required to represent their member IF Watson wishes to challenge the suspension.

Quote:

Sorry, when people f*** up that badly, the union should say, "Listen, you have to take your punishment. We'll help you get back on your feet and provide you support in the meantime." Challenging a decision like this looks bad for the PA.

It’s not the PA’s decision, they can’t force Watson to file an appeal. They also can’t refuse to represent him if he chooses to file one

That's fine. I think they should release it, because without that information the suspension length appears arbitrary. If it doesn't matter to them whether the public (or players) understand why or how they arrived at 27 games, then fine, that's up to them. But it seems to me that they'd want to be transparent about that if the goal, as it should be, is to discourage this sort of behaviour in the future.

I suspect it'll come out through the appeal process with the NHLPA anyway.

Once again I will point out that he has been suspended for 2 months. The number of games is only relative to the amount of money he is losing because of it. He has been given a two month regular season suspension. If the Predators only played 25 games in those two months, it would still be a two month suspension but he would lose less money.